Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Warf
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale I doubt we need a redirect for a clear misspelling. Should there be a "Piccard" page? I think not. – Cleanse 09:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Discussion *'Delete' – Cleanse 09:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC) *A clear Delete. – Tom 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) *'Leaning delete', but uncertain. The MA policy on redirects does say that redirects for "common" misspellings are acceptable, so I believe that the issue is whether or not this is a common misspelling. My personal opinion is that it is not, and unless no one weighs in to say that it is, it should be deleted. --31dot 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC) *''Delete. but with the same thoughts as 31dot above. Hossrex 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC) *'On the fence.. Eh - I originally voted to keep this, but Cleanse makes a good point. It does seem that youngsters might easily make this mistake, and it does seem like there are always going to be those people with less familiarity to the trek universe, but still... Warf? Maybe if you heard "Wharf." I still don't know how to spell Terry Farrell/Ferrell, and I found MA looking her up... --Icesyckel 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) **Yeah... I'm starting to rethink my opinion. Theres a difference between just randomly adding extra letters, and mistaking similar vowel sounds. Its certainly not an issue to go to war over though, considering I can't imagine that page'll get more then a hit a month. If even that.– Hossrex 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC) *'''Analysis. I am still not going to get my feelings hurt if I am voted down. However, like a Vulcan, I prefer to analyze everything before acting. Though I agree it seems a silly page, I am curious as to what the harm is in having this redirect? I'm looking at this page from a cost/benefit analysis. The benefit is a very slight chance of helping a young trekkie or someone with poor spelling skills find Worf's page and learn something in the process. Isn't that a positive effect, regardless of how slight? If there were much of any cost, however, it's clear that this page's utility would be outweighed by that cost. However, being new to MA, I am not aware of what cost there might be to outweigh the benefit in this case? Again like a Vulcan, I appreciate logic. Logic would seem to dictate that a page providing even the slightest benefit is still worthwhile until there is at least some cost to tip the scale in favor of deletion. I'd hate to see this page deleted absent some logical reason to do so. To provide a logical reason, one would need to be able to articulate, clearly, some detriment this page inflicts upon MA. --Icesyckel 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) ::A fair and well-thought out analysis. I would be more persuaded to support keeping this if the original creator weighed in to say why they created it. In my opinion potentially helpful things should actually help someone, even one person, if we're going to keep them. If the creator created it because they indeed thought it was spelled that way, then I can understand keeping it, as things like that should not neccesarily be a majority vote. If, however, there was some other reason, or no one(even one person) comments in support, I don't think we should keep it. I also, though, will not have my feelings hurt if this is kept regardless.--31dot 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) :::I asked my friend Rob to read this discussion because I think it's been fun, and he loves a good discussion as much as I. He said that, while he knew how to spell Worf, he believes that it would be easy for someone unfamiliar with the universe to hear it as "wharf" (as in fishing). Also, he thought it could be an easy typo to make. I tend to hesitate to suggest redirects for every conceivable typo, though. However, this one has already been made. I agree, the page needs to be generally beneficial to at least one person. However, a person who mistakenly spells Worf as Warf is not likely to voice his/her opinion hear (where literacy is at a premium). Either way, I've thoroughly enjoyed the cost/benefit discussion and everyone's take. It's definitely not worth getting upset over, but that's why it's so much fun to debate it. --Icesyckel 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC) **In a way... I guess what it boils down to is what Icesyckel said earlier. Cost/benefit. Worst case scenario, no person ever searches for Warf. It then costs absolutely nothing in bandwidth fees, and a fraction of a cent in the few KB is takes to keep it hosted. If people do search for it, then I think the benefit is worth the cost. Although like 31dot... I aint gonna cry of this disappears. – Hossrex 03:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC) *'Keep'. Based on the foregoing discussion, I am voting to keep the page as it is. However, like 31dot and Hossrex, I won't cry if this page goes bye-bye, and I may still change my vote if someone can articulate some cost to outweigh the slight benefit this page seems to have or potentially have. --Icesyckel 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Admin resolution * The cost/benefit stuff is a bit overwrought, but whatever. No consensus reached. Redirect kept. -- Sulfur 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Closed/archived template Is there a template we can place on here to make it more clear that the discussion has ended? I tried to comment on it because there was a deletion template on the article that this page was discussing. Jecowa 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :There are already two things on the page that make it clear. There is the comment in the "Admin resolution" section that says the decision is to keep, and the fact that it is in Category:Memory Alpha archived pages for deletion discussions. We don't need another template. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Those are both at the bottom of the page. I think there is a border that can be added around closed discussions to make it very apparent that it is closed. Jecowa 07:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :Or people can learn to read. We follow "KISS" as much as possible, and have never had this problem before. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC) That's not very nice. Please keep it civil. It's not a matter of "learning to read," it's a matter of noticeability. Jecowa 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :I should add that this would not even be an issue if the administrator who closed this discussion had removed the deletion template from Warf in the first place. You probably wouldn't have even noticed this discussion if not for that. We don't need a template, we need administrators to just handle the archival process correctly (which they almost always do). --OuroborosCobra talk 08:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, I wouldn't have edited this page if the deletion template had been removed earlier from the redirect page. Jecowa 08:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) ::Yah. Whoops. My bad for not removing it. But what is it with this poorly spelled redirect that causes people to add far too many useless comments to it? :) -- Sulfur 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :::Though I enjoyed the "useless" commentary on the deletion page, it's certainly not worth all the emotions it seems to have evoked. Why can't we all just get along? --Icesyckel 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)